I hate them as well, thats why I drive MB's. I even dislike AWD and will avoid it if possible.

FWD is nice in the snow, I live on a hill and my Jetta with bald tires will get up it. My 300SD usualy wouldn't, even with brand new tires and crap in the trunk. In that respect FWD is nice. Having said that I almost got bit with the Jetta the first time it snowed. After having driven the SD for two years I was used to RWD handling, so when the rear came out I just let off the power and steered into it a bit. It would always snap right back in line. Well on the Jetta which isn't designed as well as the MB, surprise, surprise, if you let off the throttle and steer the front end starts to drag making it worse. With FWD you have to use power to get yourself inline, or to do anything pretty much. When you start sliding you really have to remember what your driving.

Most people don't know the difference or care. Another reason I like RWD is that I work on my cars, so with the engine the right way their is room to get at things. But making RWD cars is more expensive so thats why most are FWD.

Well, FWD is popular for a few reasons:

1. FWD offers very good traction and directional control at low speeds on slippery surfaces. This becomes quite valuable when you are trying to climb a narrow, slippery hill lined with parked cars. In the bad old pre-traction control days, when a RWD vehicle began to lose traction climbing such a hill, the road's crown would often cause the back end of the vehicle to drift to the right, often into the waiting fenders of Uncle Fred's '75 Buick LeSabre. With FWD, as the driving wheels could be steered, such gravity-induced lateral drifting could be countered with a twitch of the steering wheel, and compared to a RWD car, the driver could apply more power for a longer duration while maintaining his intended direction of travel. Result? You're up the hill - no shoveling necessary.

Ah, but doesn't traction control negate this FWD advantage? Um, no. Remember that traction control is simply monitoring the availability of tire traction and accordingly metering the amount of power transferred to the driving wheels to prevent excessive wheelspin. Generally speaking, the front-end weight bias of a FWD car (static front end weight distribution is usually in the 60%+ range) forces the front tires to dig more aggressively into a soft/slippery road surface, making the maximum amount of traction available for motive purposes greater than that for a RWD car that may have 50% or less of the vehicle weight over the drive wheels. As such, less torque can be presented to the drive wheels of a RWD car, and maximum wheel speed is diminished, making it tougher to power out of deep snow. This circumstance is one reason that most traction control systems have a defeat switch.

2. Vehicle packaging - Anyone remember compact RWD cars from the Seventies? Passenger space was often compromised by the intrusion of the transmission and driveshaft tunnel and the fore-aft positioning of the rear seat was usually dictated by the need to allow room for the rear axle and differential to bound around during rear suspension cycling. This also impacted trunk space. (Note that I'm referring to those cars that had a live rear axle). With FWD, the entire driveline is packaged in the front of the vehicle, allowing designers a greater opportunity to maximize interior and cargo room within a given exterior size. Result? Well, look at the effective interior and trunk room of a RWD Ford Crown Victoria and compare it to the effective room found within a 2007 Chevy Impala. Not a great deal of difference, despite the much larger exterior dimensions of the Crown Vic. And the Impala V6 offers comparable performance to the larger Crown Vic V8.

3. Production cost - Smaller cars use less raw materials. Most FWD cars have a relatively simple driveline installation in which the engine/transaxle are plugged into the vehicle from underneath in one shot. No longitudinal driveshaft to manufacture and install, etc. Result? Potentially greater profit for the manufacturer.

Ok. I drive a 2007 Impala into a time machine and take it back to a Chevy showroom circa 1983. What would the 1983-era sticker price be for a car like the 2007 Impala? A new 1983 Chevy Celebrity, decently equipped, would retail for about $9k; Throw in the extra safety equipment and slightly larger size of the Impala, and I say that MSRP would be $11,000.

Now, we take this $11,000 Chevy and compare it to a 1983 Mercedes 380SL, which retailed for about +/- $40k. It's not quite apples and apples is it? I would hope that the Impala had a cheaper quality interior, or else MB is really taking the consumer for a ride.

Well, actually I'm now on my way back to 1966 to buy a new 427 Cobra for $8k. Hopefully, I can bring it back and make a modest profit.

My guess is 90% of the public wants to go from A to B reliably and in comfort. They don't want to mess with dedicated snow tires to make a RWD work well in snow when M+S rated all season radials will do the job 95% as well on the nicely plowed roads most people live on.

FWD is easier to produce and give more interior volume. For something like a camry or minivan its ideal. Sure, its not as balanced as RWD but if you are sliding about like an autocrosser then you likely shouldn't be in a FWD people hauler anyway.

I have seen one dyno comparison that also showed that FWD had less frictional loss through the driveline than RWD. Granted it was a small amount but even small amounts add up to better overall MPG's for CAFE ratings.....

I'd take a FWD with nice tall/thin AS tires over any RWD when the snow falls.

RT

X2.

I learned how to drive in the snow in big, heavy RWD sedans like an Oldsmobile Cutlass. You very quickly appreciate the danger of uncontrolled skids and you also learn how to change your driving habits to match the weather. Like doing everything smoothly in slippery snow - no sudden lane changes or tight corners, hard braking, etc.

I've never had an issue with any of my Mercedes in the snow. As Pete stated, it's all about tires. I always run full winter tires and stop using them when the tread gets low. I've always found that Mercedes have performed very well in the snow. With the ESP system, my E430 is incredibly stable in the snow - even with wide 235/45R17 tires.

Note that the vehicle depicted above is a 1978 Volvo 242. This is what can happen to you if you drive RWD for too long...

I drive a very good handling FWD car.
FWD is supposedly better in the snow for reasons stated already, and also because letting off the accelerator is an instinctive reactin for most people, which aids FWD cars when slipping, but not so much RWD.
However, I find it much easier and intuitive to correct an oversteer situation. It is much harder to me to point the car right at what I'm sliding at in order to regain traction than it is to counter steer to oversteer.

Some folks aren't very logical when comparing apples to oranges.

Now I am really lost. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Tom W

I'm saying that although FWD cars are reputed to be safer in the snow, and handle better than their rep, it seems to me correcting oversteer (as from RWD) is actually easier than correcting understeer. The only advantage understeer has is the instinctive tendency to lift when starting to skid.
But, if you already started skidding, then the way to correct - with understeer - is to point the wheels the way you are sliding (ie aim the wheels at what you are about to hit). If you are turning for example, and push, sliding toward the curb on the outside of the turn, you'd aim the wheels at the curb. That's tough to do mentally, to point the car at where you are sliding.

Oversteer seems to me much easier to correct.

Basically, FWD actually isn't better in the snow.

OK. Now I am with you, and I agree but I think by the time you straighten it up to get front wheel traction you will be in the guardrail!

Tom W

the rabbit handles AMAZING in the snow.



the benzos; not so much. Having a manual FWD car does make it unfair....If I get stuck I can just put it in 2nd and feather the clutch in...



driveshafts were easy as **** also. Having nothing in the back (no subframe or anything) is weird for me to look at...

I'm sure there was a more recent thread on this subject, but I can't find it. So I'm reviving this one.

Having driven/owned excellent examples of both RWD and FWD cars, I don't understand why some people detest FWD so much. I had an early '70s FWD Audi for many years and it was such a pleasure to drive that I put up with some reliability issues until the car was so old I couldn't get parts anymore. My subsequent '84 Honda Accord and my current Nissan Altima were/are also excellent cars

Now front drive cars do tend to have certain disadvantages.
The driveline is more complex and prone to damage, mainly due to the vulnerable axle-boots.
And FWD engine/transaxle position can make some routine repairs much more difficult.

But a small FWD car can be designed to be much safer than a small RWD car, especially where the fuel-tank is concerned (Remember the Pinto!)

And, as much as I like to drive my old RWD Benzes, my FWD Nissan is so much better in the snowy, icy mess that looks like it's going to be around here for awhile.
My Nissan also ensures that I don't need to subject my old Benzes to the ravages of all the road-salt that's also going to be around here for awhile.

Happy Motoring, Mark